Those who accept the government's claim that the crash of TWA Flight 800 was caused by a fuel-tank explosion dismiss the evidence that the plane was shot down accidentally by missiles launched in a Navy exercise off the Long Island coast. They say that such an accident could not have been covered up because a lot of Navy personnel would have known about it, and some of them would have talked.

One of them has finally done so. He recently said in an interview that I recorded that he was on the deck of a Navy submarine very close to the crash site and saw TWA 800 shot down.

He was brought to my attention by an acquaintance of his who told me that this retired Navy petty officer had said he was "underneath TWA 800 when he saw a missile hit it and the 747 explode overhead." He had told this acquaintance that he had given a statement to the FBI when they returned to their port, and that the FBI had checked all their torpedo tubes and all their missile silos to make sure they had all the missiles on board that they had when they left port. Asked if there were other military vessels in the area, he had said, "Yes, several."

When Pierre Salinger, at a press conference in March 1997, declared that TWA Flight 800 had been shot down accidentally by a U.S. Navy missile, this former presidential press secretary, U.S. Senator and ABC News correspondent, was mercilessly attacked by his former colleagues. They accused him of peddling unsubstantiated Internet gossip. Salinger said that his information had been confirmed by a source who learned of the Navy's involvement from a friend who had a son in the Navy. The son was said to have personal knowledge that a Navy missile had downed the plane, but his father did not want to be identified, fearing his son would suffer retaliation for disclosing information the Navy was hiding.

There are hundreds of Navy and Coast Guard personnel, as well as some FBI, CIA, FAA, NTSB and former White House employees who know that the real cause of the crash of TWA 800 was papered over with a tissue of lies. Two of them, James Kallstrom and George Stephanopoulos, have made statements that indicate an official cover-up. Stephanopoulos, a Clinton adviser who is now an ABC News correspondent, mentioned on the air a secret meeting in the White House situation room "in the aftermath of the TWA 800 bombing." Kallstrom, who headed the FBI's TWA 800 investigation, told me  and I have this on tape  that three radar targets close to the crash site were Navy vessels on a classified maneuver. We know they were submarines because the radar tracks disappeared when TWA 800 crashed.

Our newly found talker was on one of those submarines. The Navy claims that it was at least 80 miles from the crash site, but he says it was very close, and that is confirmed by the radar tracks. In our taped interview, he was more guarded than he had been with his acquaintance. He said he didn't want to do anything that might "mess up" his retirement.

He said he saw "something come up." "I don't know what in the hell it was," he said, "but that's what it looked ..." Not completing what he started to say, he said, "You know, something went up." He estimated that it went up about a mile from his location, which was only a few miles from the shore. He said there were a couple of other subs nearby. When told that the radar tracks of all three disappeared because they submerged when the plane went down, he said, "Yeah, that's what we did."

He acknowledged that a number of Navy vessels were heading for W-105, a large area of the ocean south of Long Island that is used for naval maneuvers. He said that nothing they did off Long Island was classified, but he was not comfortable in discussing it.

When I called him a few days later, he was scared to death. He feared the Navy would withdraw his pension if I reported what he had said. It was not possible to convince him that the Navy couldn't do that. Not wanting to worsen his anxiety, his name and other details are being withheld as we try to get his and other interview reports that the FBI has withheld.

Reed Irvine is the chairman of Accuracy In Media, a media watchdog group based in Washington, D.C.

The pilot of the HH-60 Major Meyers (Nam Vet) from the NY Air National Guard, 106th Air Rescue Group... already said it was a missle, he was doing a mission in the area (so close that he had to evade falling junk) to support a "RAMS" training mission (rubber raft from a HC-130 dumped in the water and pararescuemen swim to it...yada yada)

Stingers and maybe a little gismo launched out or the "tubes" the kinda floats on the surface bobbing nose up when the anti sub plane or whatever flies over....well surprise....just guessing don't know for sure.

I am wondering about the logic of the source trying to remain a secret.

I agree that the Navy should be able to track the guy down with just this information and so he'd be better off coming out of the closet. But if by that you suggest that the story is questionable. Consider that the actions of two people are involved, Irvine and a source. The actions of Irvine in reporting what someone told him are not the same as the actions or fears of the person he spoke to. The source did not think "I'll report my story but keep my identity secret." If he did, that would be strange... but that is not the case here. The source also became spooked after their first discourse.

I have posted on this forum several times about a student I had in a class I taught that was the one on a sub in the Navy in the position of "locking on" targets in the area 800 went down, and they would practice by locking onto commercial aircraft. he said it was only one more step to fire. I am not saying that is the case in this, but it was not a center tank aircraft failure that caused it. There *may* be some NTSB agents have never SEEN an airplane before becoming an investigator ;)

I'm pretty familiar with submarines, having worked on the communications system used for Tomahawk targeting, and I've not heard of anything like a tube-launched anti-air missile. I have a difficult time conceiving of the circumstances in which you'd be messing with an experimental one near the coast like that. They also need some means of positive targeting. You wouldn't just pop one out to float on the surface and activate it to shoot down whatever comes within range. At least I wouldn't. Never know what those dweebs at Naval Research Lab might do in their drunken stupor (just kidding, NRLers).

But who's missile?... well at first I agreed with those who suspected a navy misfire...but post 9-11, and considering the WH occupant at the time, I'm open to the terrorist got lucky position.

I'm not a fan of the friendly fire scenario. That would involve a wide ranging coverup. What's really weird is the night of the crash some kind of practice "missile" was photographed over the area. This photograph was included in one of the issues of Paris Match.

"Anonymous"? Reed knows who the guy is, and is withholding the name due to the person fearing retaliation. Reed is not the type to make this up.

Reed is careful not to state that the missle (or whatever the witness saw) came from a sub, but he is clearly stating that, if his witness is to be believed, the authorities have lied to us about the location of USN subs. This is a big advance in the process of untangling the coverup.

This is so sad because I used to have such a great deal of respect for Reid Irvine. In this case, however, he really is dead wrong. I was the weapons officer on board USS Normandy in 1991-1993, a few years before this alleged shoot down. Normandy is the usual culprit cited by conspiracy theorists as the alleged source of the missile. From my own experience as a Navy officer with extensive battle group experience, I can tell you that this Navy shoot-down theory is pure bunk. I know I'll never convince those who long ago wedded themselves to that bizarre and untenable theory, but it is so obviously implausible to any credible Sailor with a shred of USN experience that it just isn't worth even arguing over.

In my opinion, this submariner, if he does exist, has an axe to grind with the Navy. After his first interview with Irvine, he probably realized he was in over his head with his "sea story" and hence his reticence when Irvine tried to get his story on tape.

Exactly. It's a virtual certainty that a missile, or possibly two missiles, brought down the plane. But no one has brought forward any evidence to say who fired the missile. It could have been the naval exercise, it could have been terrorists in a small boat. This statement only says that people on the subs saw the missile--as did many others, including a number of pilots who were Vietnam veterans and know what ordinance explosions look like.

Clinton covered things up and lied more or less instinctively, so it could easily have been terrorists who were responsible, and he didn't want that to get out because he might have to do something about it.

As for losing his pension, a number of retiring generals were threatened with just that penalty by clinton. There are ways of doing it. Anyone who has been in the service knows that the mysterious military bureaucracy can do anything it wants, and no one ever knows who was responsible.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.